Pipes, pipes, pipes.
The indigenous peoples emerged only once during the debate of the federal leaders in French on Wednesday, the first of the two official debates before the vote, and the question was this: would a pipe impose the indigenous nations who do not want?
First it was the conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who avoided the question.
“At the same time, there are others that will support him,” Pailievre said in French, citing the Canceled Pipe for Northern Gateway, claiming that 80 percent of the first nations supported him.
“In that case, I think we must be on the side of the majority and also allow companies to pay part of their taxes directly to the first nations to combat poverty with industry and production.”
The leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh, began to object, but could not fully answer the question. The moderator Patrice Roy of Radio-Canada asked the leader of Poilievre and the liberal leader Mark Carney, since both undertake to increase the production of oil and gas.
During the French debate on Wednesday night, moderator Patrice Roy repeatedly asked the conservative leader Pierre Poilievre if he would impose a pipe even if the indigenous communities and Quebec opposed the project. In response, Pailievre questioned the idea that a pipe would receive opposition from Quebec people.
“No, never impose,” said Carney.
It happened to imply that indigenous people would support such projects under their leadership, citing their recent agreement with the prime ministers to create an “energy corridor” for oil, natural gas, renewable energy and critical minerals.
“With that, and with a process that involves the chiefs of the first nations, we could have a solution to this problem,” he said.
“And that is an example of leadership. That is an example of joining the leaders to achieve a national objective.”
While the debate may not have had an obvious winner, those answers made clear one thing: regardless of what part the government forms, indigenous peoples can face greater pressure to support the development of resources.
However, three indigenous rights lawyers say that consulting indigenous peoples and accommodating their rights is not optional. It is a duty rooted in the Constitution of Canada that cannot be accelerated.
“The answer has to be a non -unequivocal and unequivocal, because any other response would be contrary to the Constitution,” said Bruce Mcivor, a partner of the law of the first peoples in Vancouver.
“It cannot be imposed. As leader of the Federal Government, it has constitutional obligations. It is well developed according to the Canadian law that must respect indigenous rights.”
These rights are not a kind of obstacle to the prosperity that must be overcome, said Stephen Mussell, lawyer of Mandell Pinder LLP and citizen of the Manitoba Métis Federation.
“Indigenous rights are basic human rights,” he said.
“This idea that they are something that must be overcome, which can impose its will to achieve something for the Canadian good, seems like a problem.”
Undrip and the elephant in the room
Then there is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or Undrip, which recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to the consent for development.
The previous liberal government approved a legislation implemented Undrip, that Pailievre voted, telling the House of Commons that he was proud to oppose him.
“The UN declaration is something that federal governments must worry, and this elephant in the room, which is the idea of consent,” said Anishinaabe’s lawyer Sara Mainville, manager of JFK Law in Toronto.
Indigenous peoples have not received much attention, except in relation to natural resources or military development, in a campaign dominated by US relations, economy and affordability.
Mainville denounced that omission, saying that he will seek more discussion about indigenous peoples when leaders face Thursday.
“My customers are really worried about all the hard work they have been doing,” he said.
In Calgary on April 9, Carney said that any project that comes out of Alberta “will need the consent” of the indigenous provinces and peoples, and Mainville said that his response on Wednesday on the process could be a good start, provided that the process does not “manufacture consent.”
But Mcivor said that Pailievre’s position that the rules of the majority is not how the constitution of Canada works. The will of the majority cannot cancel the rights of a severely affected indigenous community, he said.
“That is the type of division and the conquer approach that indigenous people have seen the government too often.”
After the debate, caused by the radio-channel highways, the leader of Bloc Québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, addressed the lack of questions about indigenous issues.
“How, in the context of negotiations with the United States … nobody has said: where are indigenous nations around the table? It has not been raised,” he said.
“They are nations in their own right, with the right to self -determination, which could be valuable allies in a negotiation with the United States.”
The surveys suggest that the race has been reduced to a bidirectional career between liberals and conservatives, with the leaders of the block and the NDP launched by Francophones about the need to send a minority government to the House of Commons.
The English debate is Thursday at 7 pm et. It will be offered in the following indigenous languages: CREE plains (and dialect), Inuktitut (South Baffin dialect) and Ojibway (Western dialect).
